Okay, NOW I'm starting to feel like I'm wasting my breath. Thanks for putting that idea in my head, Plugsy.

Well I am sorry, that was not my intention. I was mostly trying to state my understanding of your statement, which I had assumed you were using examples as supporting evidence of a generalization. I apologize.

And it would seem your definition of faith and mine are different which is why my statement dose not fit your logic. I was expressing faith as a belief in something without certainty, whereas you seem to define it as belief in something without any supporting evidence (or possibly you mean very little).

I also see, now that you have defined science and religion in your eyes, that there is no more point in discussing this from your point of view, as according to your definitions, you are correct. There is no way the two can reach a consensus.

And it would seem your definition of faith and mine are different which is why my statement dose not fit your logic. I was expressing faith as a belief in something without certainty, whereas you seem to define it as belief in something without any supporting evidence (or possibly you mean very little)

I think this is a bit harsh- i would say from my perspective and guess from Vox's that 'faith' or mystical understanding is based on subjective or personal evidence rather than measurable and repeatable evidence. Which is a qualitative difference rather than a quantitative.

Faith is conviction in the absence of evidence. Inductive reasoning is conviction based on probability and precedent. They are opposed concepts, and their opposition is exactly what distinguishes science from religion.

No, not at all. I believe personal experiences are evidence, but Vox stated that Faith deals with the absence of evidence. This would imply that he only considers scientific evidence to be evidence.